The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to assess symptom burden in decompensated cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is a growing need for interventions addressing symptom burden in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC), the lack of validated symptom assessment tools is a critical barrier. We investigated the psychometric properties of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) in a longitudinal cohort of patients with DC. METHODS: Adult outpatients with DC were prospectively recruited from a liver transplant center and completed ESAS-r at baseline and week 12. We examined reliability, floor/ceiling effects, structural validity, and known-groups validity. We examined the convergent and predictive validity of ESAS-r with health-related quality of life using the Short Form Liver Disease Quality of Life (SF-LDQOL) and responsiveness to changes in anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: From August 2018 to September 2022, 218 patients (9% Child-Pugh A, 59% Child-Pugh B, and 32% Child-Pugh C) were prospectively recruited and completed the ESAS-r, SF-LDQOL, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and week 12 (n = 135). ESAS-r had strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.86), structural validity (comparative fit index 0.95), known-groups validity (Child-Pugh A: 25.1 vs. B: 37.5 vs. C: 41.4, p = 0.006), and convergent validity (r = -0.67 with SF-LDQOL). Floor effects were 9% and ceiling effects were 0.5%. Changes in ESAS-r scores from baseline to week 12 significantly predicted changes in SF-LDQOL (β = -0.36, p < 0.001), accounting for 30% of the variation. ESAS-r was strongly responsive to clinically meaningful changes in SF-LDQOL, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CONCLUSIONS: ESAS-r is a reliable, valid, and responsive tool for assessing symptom burden in patients with DC and can predict changes in health-related quality of life. Future directions include its implementation as a key outcome measure in cirrhosis care and clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".